OFFICE  OF  THE  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI

C.C.10/2015

Present:-

                             1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S.  -   President

                             2)Sri U.N.Deka                        -   Member

          Shri Rabindra Dey                                             - Complainant

          Son of Late Nibaran Ch.Dey,

          Abhijit Housing Complex,Pandav Nagar,

          Flat No. F/4,3^rd floor,Guwahati-12

          District: Kamrup,Assam                                               

                           -vs-

1)       M/S Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd.           - Opp.parties

         Adityam,5^th * 6^th floor,(Above KFC),

          Borthakur Mill Road,Ulubari, Ghty-7

          District Kamrup (Metro),Assam

2)      M/S Jikmik World , Six Mile,

         G.S.Road,Near Airtel Head Office,

         Ghty-22, District: Kamrup,Assam

Appearance-        

                   Learned advocate Mr.P.K.Bajaj for the complainant

                   Date of argument-           9.2.2016

       Date of judgment-          24.2.2016 

EXPARTE JUDGMENT

This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The complaint, filed by Sri Rabindra Dey, was admitted on 8.2.15 and notices was served upon the opp.parties, but they defaulted to appear before this forum, and accordingly this forum, vide order dtd.17.11.15, directed that the case against the opp.parties will proceed on exparte. The complainant filed his evidence in affidavit on 18.1.16 and his learned counsel P.K.Bajaj filed his written argument and also forwarded his oral argument on 9.2.16. Accordingly, we deliver the judgment today which is as below-
2.         The complainant case in brief is that the complainant had purchased a Samsung 32” LED T.V. set vide Model No.VA32F5100 and SL No.23473ZEE 200390 from Opp.Party No.2 namely M/S Jikmik World, Sixmile ,Guwahati on 17.5.14, but the said T.V.set on 23.11.14 abruptly stopped functioning due to unknown reasons, and he then lodged a telephonic complaint to Opp. Party No.1, and Opp.Party No.1 sent a technician and the said technician inspected his T.V.at his residence and reported him that the display unit of the T.V. has been damaged for which the entire panel board has to be replaced.The technician also reported him that the panel is the main brain of the T.V. and replacing the entire panel board will be costly affairs and it replaced the warranty period cannot be extended. Then he requested the opp.parties to replace the T.V. instead of repairing it if no warranty is provided after repairing. He then sent a E.Mail to Opp.Party No.1 stating the entire fact and requested them to provide him a LED T.V. replacing the damaged one, and he also personally visited the office of Opp.Party No.1 and requested for replacement, but they refused to replace it. Thereafter on 6.12.2014 the complainant again visited the office of Opp.Party No.1 and requested them to replace the T.V., but Opp.Party No.1 expressed their inability to replacing the same. As the opp.party side refused to replace the defective T.V. he had suffered great deal of mental agony. The defect detected in the T.V. is a manufacturing defect, and hence the manufacturer and the dealer are jointly and severally liable to replacing his T.V. They are also liable to pay him compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to him.
3.          We have perused the evidence of the complainant and found that the complainant purchased the said T.V. from Opp.Party No.2 on 17.5.14 at a price of Rs.34,700/-. From Ex.2 it is seen that the complainant informed the Opp.Party No.1 about the defect of the said T.V. which was first detected on 23.11.14 and requested Opp.Party No.1 to gave him a fresh T.V. replacing the same and Opp.Party No.1 received the said complaint,  but refused to replace the same. Thus, it is clear that the T.V. purchased by the complainant from Opp.Party No.2 has manufacturing defect which is a major defect and for that defect it cannot be repaired. In such situation the complainant is entitled to get a fresh T.V. in the replace of the said defective T.V. It is also found that Opp.Party No.1 as well as Opp.Party NO.2 refused to replacing the said T.V.. Therefore, we hold that Opp.Party No.1 & 2 are liable to return the price value of the said T.V. which is Rs.34,700/-, to the complainant, and also to pay at least Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassing the complainant and another amount of Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
4.           In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed on exparte and the opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.34,700/- to the complainant as value of the defective T.V. which they had refused to replace. They are also directed to pay  Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceeding to the complainant, to which they are jointly and severally liable. They are asked to pay the amounts within two months, in default it shall carry interest @ 12 % per annum.

Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 24^th   Feb,2016.

Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.

    (Md.S.Hussain)

        President

  (Mr.U.N.Deka)

      Member